Judiciary of IndiaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series onJudiciary of India

Law of India

Administration[show]

Civil courts[show]

Criminal courts[show]

Executive Court[show]

Legal profession[show]

Legal education[show]

v t e

The Indian Judiciary administers a common law system of legal jurisdiction, in which customs, precedents and legislation, all codify the law of the land. The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of its jurisdiction which extends throughout the territory of the country.[i]

It has in part, inherited the legacy of the legal system established by the then colonial powers and the princely states since the mid-19th century, and has partly retained characteristics of practices from the ancient and medieval times.[1]

There are various levels of judiciary in India – different types of courts, each with varying powers depending on the tier and jurisdiction bestowed upon them. They form a strict hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, with the Supreme Court of India at the top, followed by High Courts of respective states with district judges sitting in District Courts and Magistrates of Second Class and Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the bottom. Courts hear criminal and civil cases, including disputes between individuals and the government. Contents [hide]

1 Courts o 1.1 Supreme Court of India o 1.2 High courts o 1.3 District courts o 1.4 Village courts

2 Issues o 2.1 Pendency of cases o 2.2 Judicial corruption

3 Reform o 3.1 E-Courts Mission Mode Project

3.1.1 Judicial Service Centre

4 History o 4.1 Jury trial

5 See also 6 Further reading 7 References 8 Notes

Courts[edit]Supreme Court of India[edit]Main article: Supreme Court of IndiaOn 26 January 1950, the day India's constitution came into force, the Supreme Court of India was formed in Delhi. [2]

The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges – leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sit together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978 and 26 in 1986. As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller Benches of two and three – coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges appointed by the President of India, as the sanctioned full strength. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a high court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an advocate of a high court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the president, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a high court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court and for retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of that Court.The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. A judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the president passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the president in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the land as established by Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution of India, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal court, guardian of the Constitution and the highest court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the composition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Primarily, it is an appellate court which takes up appeals against judgments of the High Courts of the states and territories. However, it also takes writ petitions in cases of[3] serious human rights violations or any petition filed under Article 32 which is the right to constitutional remedies or if a case involves a serious issue that needs immediate resolution. The Supreme Court of India had its inaugural sitting on 28 January 1950, and since then has delivered more than 24,000 reported judgments.High courts[edit]Main article: High courts of India

There are 24 High Courts at the State level. Article 141 of the Constitution of India mandates that they are bound by the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court of India by precedence. These courts have jurisdiction over a state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories. Below the High Courts are a hierarchy of subordinate courts such as the civil courts, family courts, criminal courts and various other district courts. High courts are instituted as constitutional courts under Part VI, Chapter V, Article 214 of theIndian Constitution.The High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in the state along with District Courts which are subordinate to the High courts. However, High courts exercise their original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the courts subordinate to the high court in the state are not competent (not authorised by law) to try such matters for lack of pecuniary, territorial jurisdiction. High courts may also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters if so designated specifically in a state or Federal law. e.g.: Company law cases are instituted only in a high court.However, primarily the work of most High Courts consists of Appeals from lower courts and writ petitions in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Jurisdiction is also original jurisdiction of High Court. The precise territorial jurisdiction of each High Court varies.Judges in a high court are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of High Court and the governor of the state. The number of judges in a court is decided by dividing the average institution of main cases during the last five years by the national average, or the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that High Court, whichever is higher.[citation needed]

The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in the country, established on 2 July 1862.High courts which handle a large number of cases of a particular region, have permanent benches (or a branch of the court) established there. For litigants of remote regions, 'circuit benches' are set up, which work for those days in a month when judges visit.[4]

District courts[edit]Main article: District Courts of IndiaThe District Courts of India are established by the State governments in India for every district or for one or more districts together taking into account the number of cases, population distribution in the district. They administer justice in India at a district level. These courts are under administrative control of the High Court of the State to which the district concerned belongs. The decisions of District court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the concerned High court.[5]

The district court is presided over by one District Judge appointed by the state Government. In addition to the district judge there may be number of Additional District Judges and Assistant District Judges depending on the workload. The Additional District Judge and the court presided have equivalent jurisdiction as the District Judge and his district court.[6]The district judge is also called "Metropolitan session judge" when he is presiding over a district court in a city which is designated "Metropolitan area" by the state Government.[7]The district court has appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts situated in the district on both civil and criminal matters. Subordinate courts, on the civil side (in ascending order) are, Junior Civil Judge Court, Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Senior Civil Judge Court (also called sub-court). Subordinate courts, on the criminal side (in ascending order) are, Second Class Judicial Magistrate Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.Village courts[edit]Village courts, called Lok Adalat (people's court) or Nyaya Panchayat (justice of the villages), compose a system of alternative dispute resolution.[8]

They were recognized through the 1888 Madras Village Court Act, then developed (after 1935) in various provinces and (after 1947) Indian states.[8] The model from the Gujarat State (with a judge and two assessors) was used from the 1970s onwards.[8] In 1984 the Law Commission recommended to

create Nyaya Panchayats in rural areas with laymen ("having educational attainments").[8] The 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act have foreseen 5,000 mobile courts in the country for judging petty civil (property cases) and criminal (up to 2 years of prison) cases.[8] However, the Act has not been enforced properly, with only 151 functional Gram Nyayalayas in the country (as of May 2012) against a target of 5000 such courts.[9] The major reasons behind the non-enforcement includes financial constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.[9]

Issues[edit]This section requires expansion.(June 2012)

According to the World Bank, "although India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary"[10] A functioning judiciary is the guarantor of fairness and a powerful weapon against corruption. But people's experiences fall far short of this ideal. Corruption in the judiciary goes beyond the bribing of judges. Court personnel are paid off to slow down or speed up a trial, or to make a complainant go away.Citizens are often unaware of their rights, or resigned, after so many negative experiences, to their fate before a corrupt court. Court efficiency is also crucial, as a serious backlog of cases creates opportunities for demanding unscheduled payments to fast-track a case.[11]

Indian Judiciary Issues have been depicted in several films, one of them being a 2015, Marathi film, Court.Pendency of cases[edit]Indian courts have crores of pending cases.[12] For instance, the Delhi High Court could take 466 years to clear all cases with it despite taking an average of about five minutes to dispose each.[13] Traffic challans, police challans and cheque bounce cases make up nearly half of all pending cases.[14][15] It is an established fact which the Govt. of India accepts that there is 40% shortage of judicial staff[citation needed].On 12 January 2012, a Supreme Court bench said that people's faith in judiciary was decreasing at an alarming rate, posing a grave threat to constitutional and democratic governance of the country. It acknowledged some of the serious problems of a large number of vacancies in trial courts, unwillingness of lawyers to become judges, and the failure of the apex judiciary in filling vacant HC judges posts.It wanted to seek answers from the government on amicus curiae's suggestion that access to justice must be made a constitutional right and consequently the executive must provide necessary infrastructure for ensuring every citizen enjoyed this right. It also wanted the Government of India to detail the work being done by the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms.[16][17][18]

There have been cases where ordinary citizens have been charged for espionage while overstaying their visa or straying across the international land or maritime boundary and languishing in prison for years due to the slow redressal process.[19]

To reduce pendency, 'Fast-track courts', 'Evening courts/Morning courts' were set up and have met with mixed success so far.[20][21] 'Mobile courts' are being set up to bring 'justice at the doorsteps'[22] of litigants of far-flung remote and backward rural areas.[23]

However, Lok Adalats an informal, alternative mechanism has been a phenomenal success in tackling pendency, especially in pre-litigation matters, settling fresh cases before they become full-blown disputes and enter the courts.[24][25][26]

Judicial corruption[edit]Corruption is rampant in India's courts. According to Transparency International, judicial corruption in India is attributable to factors such as "delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex

procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws".[27] Most disturbing is the fact that corruption has reached the highest judicial forum i.e. Supreme Court of India. Some notable cases include:

1. In December 2009, legal activist and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan stated in court, "out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt"[28][29] In November 2010, former Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan echoed Prashant Bhushan's claim.[30]

2. There have been allegations that judges with doubtful integrity were elevated within the higher judiciary and campaigns held for their impeachment.[31]

3. In November 2011, a former Supreme Court Justice Ruma Pal slammed the higher judiciary for what she called the seven sins. She listed the sins as:

1. Turning a blind eye to the injudicious conduct of a colleague2. Hypocrisy – the complete distortion of the norm of judicial independence3. Secrecy – the fact that no aspect of judicial conduct including the appointment of

judges to the High and Supreme Court is transparent4. Plagiarism and prolixity – meaning that very often SC judges lift whole passages from

earlier decisions by their predecessors and do not acknowledge this – and use long-winded, verbose language

5. Self Arrogance – wherein the higher judiciary has claimed crass superiority and independence to mask their own indiscipline and transgression of norms and procedures

6. Professional arrogance – whereby judges do not do their homework and arrive at decisions of grave importance ignoring precedent or judicial principle

7. Nepotism – wherein favors are sought and dispensed by some judges for gratification of varying manner.[32]

4. In 2011, Soumitra Sen, former judge at the Kolkata High Court became the first judge in the India to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha for misappropriation of funds.[33]

Reform[edit]This section requires expansion.(June 2012)

E-Courts Mission Mode Project[edit]Main article: E-courts In IndiaThe E-courts project was established in the year 2005.[34] According to the project, all the courts including taluk courts will get computerised. As per the project in 2008, all the District courts were initialised under the project. In 2010, all the District court were computerised. The entry of back log case has started. The IT department had one system officer and two system assistants in each court. They initiated the services in the Supreme Court in June 2011. The case lists and the judgements of most district courts are available in http://lobis.nic.in. in http://judis.nic.in is used to connect all High Courts and Supreme Court judgements and cause list. These websites are updated daily by a technical team. Now the establishment work is going on taluk courts.The project also includes producing witnesses through video conferencing. Filing cases, proceedings, and all other details will be in computers. Each district court contains 1 system officer and 2 system assistants. This technical manpower is involved in training the staff, updating web sites.[citation needed]

Establishment of e-courts in India is in infancy stage.[35] Till the month of October 2014 we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India.[36]

Judicial Service Centre[edit]

This is a part of e-court project. The judicial service centres are available in all court campus. The Public as well as the advocates can walk in directly and ask for the case status, stage and next hearing dates. This service is provided for free.[citation needed]

History[edit]Jury trial[edit]The first jury trial decided by an English jury in India happened in Madras (today Chennai) in 1665, for which Ascentia Dawes (probably a British woman) was charged by a grand jury with the murder of her slave girl, and a petty jury, with six Englishmen and six Portuguese, found her not guilty.[8] With the development of the East India Company empire in India, the jury system was implemented inside a dual system of courts: In Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay), there were Crown Courts and in criminal cases juries had to judge British and European people (as a privilege) and in some cases Indian people; and in the territories outside the Presidency Towns (called "moffussil"), there were Company Courts (composed with Company officials) without jury to judge most of the cases implying indigenous people.[8]

After the Crown Government of India (Raj) adopted the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (1861, amended in 1872, 1882, 1898), the criminal jury was obligatory only in the High Courts of the Presidency Towns; elsewhere, it was optional and rarely used.[8] According sections 274 and 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jury was composed from 3 (for smaller offences judged in session courts) to 9 (for severe offences judges in High Courts) men; and when the accused were European or American, at least half of the jurors had to be European or American men.[8]

The jury found no place in the 1950 Indian Constitution, and it was ignored in many Indian states.[8] The Law Commission recommended its abolition in 1958 in its 14th Report.[8]Jury trials were abolished in India by a very discrete process during the 1960s, finishing with the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is still in force today.[8]

It has been argued that the 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge and were susceptible to media and public influence, was the reason. A study by Elisabeth Kolsky argues that many "perverse verdicts" were delivered by white juries in trial of "European British subjects" charged with murder, assault, confinement of Indians.[8]

‘Court’ is about loopholes in Indian judicial system, but didn’t make it for social cause: Chaitanya Tamhane"Court" talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial system, but Chaitanya Tamhane insists he didn't make it for a social cause. 0 1

Comments (1)

His National Award-winning film “Court” talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial system, but director Chaitanya Tamhane insists he did not make the movie for a social cause and it is a just an expression of his selfish interest.His National Award-winning film “Court” talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial system, but director Chaitanya Tamhane insists he did not make the movie for a social cause and it is a just an expression of his selfish interest.Chaitanya said the reason he took up “Court” was because he was fascinated by the setting of a real courtroom and wanted to bring it on screen.“It is purely a selfish exploration. I am not doing this to put across a message or change things. There is no intention of activism or bringing about a social change. If something like this happens as a by-product, that is another thing and it is not in my control. But personally for me, it is a way of my expression. In the process I get educated too and my knowledge gets fine tuned. I made the film because I liked the story,” Chaitanya told PTI.The filmmaker’s journey of making the multi-lingual movie started from his curiosity about what happens inside a courtroom and and when he visited one, his notion was shattered.“I am always fascinated by the setting or a profession. Characters and stories come much later. In case of ‘Court’, I started wondering what it must be like to go to a courtroom. I went to a magistrate and session court in Mumbai and I was fascinated by it because it was not at all the way I had imagined. The most intense decisions were taken with an air of casualness, or sometimes the lawyers were not prepared orthere would be a missing victim. There was a sense of chaos and sometimes time would slow down,” he said.SHARE THIS ARTICLE

The film draws many real-life influences but the director clarifies that there are only references and the setting is purely fictional.“It is not inspired by any one incident but is based on several true cases. I have taken the reference but the characters and story are fictional. You might find one or two similarities here and there because essentially I am inspired by some real-life cases but there is no direct reference to any real person. I came across the case of cultural activist Jiten Marandi in Jharkhand. He was falsely accused in a bomb blast. The suspect was some other Jiten Marandi but because they could not find him, they arrested this guy and he was sentenced to death. This case took me to other activists and more cases,” Chaitanya said.The filmmaker said one of the biggest challenges of making the movie was to re-create a courtroom, especially because everyone depended on their memory and had no support from pictures or any videos.“You can’t take a picture or a video in a courtroom, forget shooting. So, a lot of us spent time in courts, secretly jotting down notes, carefully observing all details.The production designer and art designer would be there too and then creating all that on our set.“So, that was a big challenge- to get the details right because every other location in the film is a real location. Another important thing was to not get oppressed by the very same technicalities, details of a court session because ultimately I was constructing a narrative,” the director said.“Court” is releasing tomorrow in India, majorly in Maharashtra and in some metropolitan cities.When asked why the makers went with a less number of screens, Chaitanya said, “120-130 screens is still a very wide release for an independent, arthouse film. Trade is very ruthless about such things. For them even this is a lot. The idea is to grow. So, we intend to start in a limited manner but grow organically.- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/court-is-about-loopholes-in-indian-judicial-system-but-didnt-make-it-for-social-cause-chaitanya-tamhane/#sthash.vRkoK3sx.dpufWhat are the loopholes in the Indian judicial system, that can now be exploited by the lawyers of Salman Khan to keep him out of jail for another 20-30 years?Re-AskFollow 2 7 Answers

Sonia Chauhan, Qualified Lawyer.Sonia has 60+ answers in Law.Oh, well. Here's my two bits on the Salman matter. The Sessions Court awarded Salman a sentence. That's fine. Salman got bail. That's fine too. Here's what I found odd about the whole thing. Generally, when a criminal sentence is handed to a person ~ he goes to Jail. From Jail, he applies for bail. He does or doesn't get it. However, Salman got his bail within a few hours of having received his sentence. A bench at the High Court heard his case in the evening (I'm surprised!) and immediately gave him interim/extended bail. That's odd. When you get a criminal sentence, you go to jail. Atleast for a

day. Come on. Suspension of sentence is generally applied for once the convicted undergoes atleast one-third of his/her sentence. Salman's case is an exception here as well. He served no time on that Sessions Court order and managed to actually get it suspended. Here is Salman's suspension order ~ Page on bombayhighcourt.nic.in Now, I'll answer your question. 1. The suspension order states that the appeal will be heard expeditiously. In the Indian judicial system, every adjective is subjective. What is expeditious in my eyes may not be so for you. And vice-versa. See what I mean? 2. It also says that the appeal will be heard finally in July 2015. He has set a time-limit on it. But this could also be gotten out of - stating reasons ranging from "in the interest of justice" , "for securing importance documents for just and substantial reasons" to "for reasons of natural justice", etc.Seeing the lame-ass reasons upon which the suspension has been granted (read the order to know more), they could hold off the arguments for any given period of time. 3. The Judge could get scared and transfer the case. This means, it would then be listed before another Judge, who would have a different opinion on the case altogether. The proceedings could get so muddled up that they could be referred to a Division Bench (two-judge panel), hence, wasting more time. Once, a matter is admitted (like this one) ~ it could take years for the matter to be fully argued and heard. Then, Salman can appeal to the Supreme Court by way of SLP. Yeah, it could take years. It would take years. It will take years. How it looks like now, I would be very surprised if Salman Khan goes to Jail. *I don't blame Salman Khan. The man is only saving his life. Any rich, famous and influential man in his place would do exactly the same. Dig in his diamond studded heels and push the system as far as it would go. Salman Khan is not the first person to do so, and he won't be the last. 969 views • 22 upvotes • Updated 16 May • Asked to answer by Anand PrakashUpvote 22 Downvote Comments 2 More Answers Below. Related Questions

Who else do you think is expecting bail now from the Indian judicial system? Before Salman & now Jaya Lalita bailed. Does that show the inaccuracy of the Indian Judicial

system? Is Salman Khan's hit and run case another example of the failure of the Indian judicial system? What's wrong with the Indian Judicial system? How can people like Salman Khan or Ramalinga

Raju come out with bail? How can someone like Jayal...

Salman Khan (Indian film actor): What is your take on Salman Khan's verdict of 5-year prison for a 2002 hit and run case? How was this case different from Alistair Pereira's 2...

Suyash Manjul, of LawSuyash has 30+ answers in Supreme Court of India.I call this the "Paradox of Law". If I say that his lawyers are "exploiting" the legal system to keep him out jail that would mean that I somehow know for sure that he is Guilty. If, on appeal he is released and the trial court judgment is nullified that would mean that he is not guilty and therefore my belief was wrong. It can therefore never be established unless the Supreme Court pronounces the verdict of his guilt (Remember: The Supreme Court is not final because it is right, it is right because it is final). So whatever I say here is in no way related to Salman Khan or his guilt or the strategy that his lawyers apply. It is all about the practical operations of the law.

Indian Law like laws in other countries work on two forms of law:1. Substantive Law2. Procedural Law

Substantive law is that part of law which defines Rights, Duties, Crimes and their Punishments etc. It is the "What" of the Law. The Procedural lawhowever is that part of the Law which consists of the proper way of doing things, such as hearing a case in a court of law, or the process of conducting investigations and determining evidences etc. It is the "How" of the Law.For example "What" is theft and "What" punishment to be given for it, is provided in the Indian Penal Code. But once someone is is accused of stealing, how the investigation must be conducted and how the courts should try the witness is all part of procedural law mostly provided in Criminal Procedure code as well as in certain other laws.

When it comes to delay in trials this procedural law is to be held responsible. The discretion of the courts, the right to seek adjournments, the concern to not hamper the rights of accused. Apart from procedural law, the lethargic attitude of the authorities and the over burdened courts, the lack of technological access are other major reasons. Once all these reasons add up, all the lawyers has to do is play these cards one by one at the right time.The prosecutions seeks adjournments.The defense seeks adjournments.The authorities delay the matter.The Courts are not able to give much time (work burden)The right to appeal to Higher Courts.All these add up to delay, long delays.

Thanks for the A2A Anand Prakash

If you liked this answer, please do like our page Legally India and Visit my blog Legal Digital or read my book for startups Legal Foundation for Startups and help us create a better startup environment by filling this formEntrepreneurs' Form. 376 views • 6 upvotes • Written 8 May • Asked to answer by Anand PrakashUpvote 6 Downvote Comments 2

Derek DemitriusIn a democratic country the process of law is quite different even the accused are given the benefit of doubt and there is a whole line of defense that is given precedence. This is how the system works. The reason for India's Judiciary system lagging behind is not the number of cases, it is the ruling government that gives importance to certain issues. Who says a judiciary system is not tainted, bring me one case where the prosecution or the Police department is pulled up for not doing their duty, It will take a zillion Modis to clear this mess and it will still not get cleared until and unless the pay structure and the policing system is changed.

We still follow the policing system that the British introduced when they were ruling, The hierarchy is still the same, the only difference is the the British have been replaced by the Politicians.

Good Policemen get shuffled around like a pack of cards till they give up and let be. Not a single politician has come forward to change the way police work, not even Modi, we can see changes in different fields airline industry, automobile industry, I can keep naming it... But when it comes to administration and law and order there has been no change.

A policeman in India is forced to be corrupt, he is not paid well given shoddy housing with no facilities for education for his kids. What do you expect him to do, resort to Gandhi's scriptures.

Everybody knows it but still does nothing about it. Actors and Actresses have great charity work being done for villages, have they looked out for the constable that patrols the ward in the middle of the night all by himself, have they given praise to the Inspectors that face the criminal world every day?

The Indian Police are the most competent Policemen in the World if given the opportunity this country can see much better days if this force is given the power to eliminate corruption.

Today a girl can walk the streets of Mumbai at 1.00 am this was not the case 3 decades ago, but nobody has ever given credit to those men in uniform who got rid of Mumbai rivalry gangs!!

This is the way I see it and my personal opinion 48 views • Written 8 May • Asked to answer by Anand PrakashUpvote Downvote Comment 1

Kailash Kanugo, Inspired by The God, Parents, Teachers, Better Half, and the Nation. A pigmy ...Now when the Criminal appeal of Salman-Khan is admitted in the High Court, the delaying tactics would start with these steps.

Step 1 :- Delay the transmission of trial (sessions) court record to the High Court since unless the record is received by the appellate court, the case can not move further.

Step 2 :- After receipt of concerned case record in the High court, then manage the concerned clerk of record section to see that it does not move to next section/department for a considerable time period or as long as it could be.

Step 3 :- Manage the Public prosecutor to delay the matter. ( The accused in this case is very rich and is able to shell out anything which any Public Prosecutor can dream of ).

Step 4 :- Engage such advocate who is relative of any sitting High Court or Supreme Court Judge. There are many relatives of sitting and retired High Court Judges who are practicing lawyers in Mumbai High Court.

And if only Step no.4 is followed, I am sure that Salman-Khan will get the desired order of acquittal from the High Court itself. So forget about 20-30 years, if Salman-Khan remains alive beyond that then also, he will be able to mock at the law made for a common man.( and common man only).

Note :- I would like to receive comments ( if any) from practicing lawyers only. Other having only theoretical knowledge, pl excuse me.Essay on the Indian Judicial Systemby Prasad NandaAdvertisements:The British set up the Indian judicial system as a copy of the British judicial system.The judiciary is relatively independent and consists of the Supreme Court which is made up of the chief justice and 25 other justices, all appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.The Supreme Court is the apex court in the country. It is situated in the capital city of Delhi, presided over by the Chief Justice of India and does not have benches in any other part of the country.This apex court, besides being the final court of permissible appeal, also deals with interstate matters and matters that involve more than one state, matters between the Union Government and any or more states.The President of India can seek consultation and guidance including the opinion of the apex court and its judges. This court can penalize anybody for its own contempt. Appeals to the Supreme Court are allowed from the High Court only. If the matter is deemed to be important enough on the point of law or on the subject of the constitution of the nation and is certified as such by the High court, then and then alone is the Appeal forwarded to the Supreme Court.Special Leave Petitions are allowed in the absence of appeal from the High Court with the leave of the apex court. The High Court is the head of the state’s judicial administration. Each state is further divided into judicial districts presided over by a district and sessions judge, who is the highest judicial authority in the district.Below him, there are courts of civil jurisdiction, known in different states as sub-judges or civil judges. The Criminal Judiciary comprises of chief judicial magistrate and judicial magistrates of first and second class.The Indian judiciary has become a crumbling institution that has no internal mechanisms. It has displayed a distinct lack of will or strength to adapt to the changing times.Due to the time it takes to get justice in India, people have an inclination to evade filing cases. International investors and corporations take this as a stumbling block of doing business in India. The long drawn out Jessica Lai murder case and the Mumbai blasts of 1993 highlight the weaknesses of our judiciary.The Harshad Mehta scam one of the first major scandals is a good example of how long the Indian judiciary takes to serve justice. After seven years of trial, Harshad Mehta was punished. Around the

same time in Singapore there was a scandal involving Nick Leeson of the Barings Company. Under the Singapore system of justice within two years, Leeson was punished. He actually underwent the punishment before the first decision could be arrived at under the Indian judicial system in the Harshad Mehta case.The common man perceives the court not as a means of procuring justice but an alternative to be used for the harassment of the opposite party. The delays in the judicial systems are counterproductive. Justice delayed in actuality is justice denied. Many disputes are sought to be settled through mediators- sometimes goons and sometimes local politicians.The arcane procedures, irrelevant laws and long drawn out appeals only serve to slow down the justice granted by the judicial system in India. Over two million cases are pending in 18 High Courts alone and more than 200,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court for admission, interim relief or final hearing. And it takes anywhere between 5 to 15 years for a case to be decided in an Indian Court. The future of justice in India looks bleak unless some very radical changes are incorporated in the judiciary system.Short essay on Indian Judiciary systemDNYANESH KUMARAdvertisements:

Within the framework of parliamentary democracy and federalism, judiciary plays an important role in the governance of the country. The judiciary is an indispensable part of governance and an efficient and independent judiciary is the greatest guarantee of well being of society.Indeed, the Indian judiciary was seen to be an arm of the social revolution, upholding the equality and dignity of men that the people of India suffered long during the colonial days, but it has not been gained as yet.Historically speaking, the Indian judicial system has had a glorious past.. The framers of the Indian Constitution conceived of a judicial system, which was free from the control of the executive as well as the legislature. India opted for a single judicial system and by creating a single judiciary with the Supreme Court at the top, the framers of the Constitution obviously intended to introduce certain judicial reforms.In the governance of a democracy, judiciary plays a very important role, which is second to none. The Constitution accords a place of pride to the judiciary by conferring the power of judicial review of legislative and administrative actions and entrusting it with the task of enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.In fact, the judiciary assumes a significant and special importance by virtue of its very task of sitting on judgment on the actions of the other two organs and power of interpreting the constitutional provisions.Judiciary - the organisation for giving justice to the society, occupies a position of pre-eminence among the three organs of the State. Justice is considered, as a logical requirement of any society for it is a part of human nature to expect justice and be intolerant to injustice. Justice enjoins upon everybody to preserve the basic order of society and prohibits everyone to disturb it.The promotion of good governance through judiciary depends on its independence to a great extent. An independent, unbiased and able judiciary is the first requirement of justice. Independence of the judiciary means independence from the government in power since judges have to provide justice not only between citizens but also between a citizen and the State.The Indian Constitution makes provision for an independent and impartial judiciary. Former Chief Justice Chandra HUD opines that the independence of judiciary is the "cardinal feature" and observed that the "judiciary which is to act as a bastion of the rights and freedom of the people is given certain constitutional guarantees to safeguard the independence of judiciary".

Firstly, in order to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, certain provisions are provided in the Constitution. One such provision is the appointment of judges.The Constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of a judge is that only those persons can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, who are citizens of India and (a) has been judge of a High Court or of two or more courts in succession at least for five years; or (b) has been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession at least for ten years; or (c) is a distinguished jurist, in the opinion of the President.These provisions show that no ordinary person can become a judge. In other words, highly qualified persons can become a judge of the Supreme Court. In the lower, appointments are made on the basis of written examinations those who clear the examinations an appointed. Here too, we see that the appointments are strictly made on the basis of merit.Secondly, they are provided security of tenure. Once appointed, they can stay in office till they attain the age of 65 and 62 (Supreme Court and High Court respectively). They can be removed from their post only on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity through a process of impeachment.This impeachment process is so tough that till date no judge has been removed from the post. Once, the proceedings were initiated against Justice Ramaswamy for financial irregularities but the resolution could not be passed for want of required support in the House.Thirdly, in case of Supreme Court judges, they have been prohibited from practicing law before any court of authority within the territory of India after retirement.Fourthly, they are paid handsome salary and are entitled to a free house and certain other allowances and privileges neither the salary allowances and privileges, nor their rights in respect of leave of absence or pension can varied to their disadvantage after their appointment. During a grave financial emergency, the salaries of the judges may be reduced.Fifthly, all the actions and decisions of the judges in their official capacity are immune from criticism. Besides, the conduct of a judge may not be discussed in the parliament except when a resolution for his removal is before it.Finally, the Supreme Court has been authorized to have its own establishment and to have complete control over it. It is further authorized to make appointments of officers and servants of the court and determine their service conditions.All these provisions were made in order to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judges. As Ambedkar said in the Assembly, it was the intention of the framers to create a judiciary and to give it ample independence so that it could act without fear or favour of the executive or anybody elseFree sample essay on the Problems of the Judiciary system of Indiaby Aliva ManjariAdvertisements:We have inherited the present system of our courts and their procedure from the British which has been tried for more than 150 years. It has, however, to be admitted that old is not always gold. The system suited well when it was introduced.It is still to a great extent the best judicial system but, like any other system, it has become old, ineffective and is unable to cope with the changing pattern of the society.New blood in the procedure needs to be injected and sooner the better. The late Mr. M.C Stalvad, the first Attorney General of India, in his address to the Bar Association of India said:No doubt the British system of administration was very good and led to excellent results, but it had its defects which have been accentryated in two ways. We are now a democratic country and we are a much more populous country.In these days, therefore, what is required is a radical change in the method of administration of justice. We want courts to which people can go with ease and with as little cost as possible. It is not merely the

quickness of justice but it is the easy approach and quick disposal both which are needed and that only can be achieved if the system is completely overhauled:This was said about 40 years ago. Have we made any important? Chief Justice Ranganath Mishra had given an optimistic note. He in his law Day speech in 1990 observed.In these forty years law has considerably progressed in many aspects. The bar of locus stand was liberalized as early as in 1981. Ever since then, these have been a sizeable mould to the nature of litigation particularly in superior courts. In these 8-9 years, Public and has served the cause of the community to a great extent.It is in this group of cases that the court has exhibited its competition of being a social auditor. The impact of the judicial process in social living has been clear and discernible; the common man has perhaps been able to see the benefit the judicial system is capable of bringing about.Admires and credits often indicate that for reasons which are more than one judicial system has shown appearances of cracks and fatigue. It has therefore become necessary to deal with the situation both promptly as also dexterously.It would not be enough to overcome the almost inevitable inefficiency of justice according top law. But far-reaching changes are certainly impossible while the regime of individualism upon which are prevailing ideal is based is considered desirable.As long as individual interest is preferred to general interest, both civil and criminal justice must remain inefficient and insufficient to a large extent. Those who speak of judicial inefficiency are usually unaware of the highly artificial meaning of the conception.The law is efficient in civil suits when it enters judgement and issues execution as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter its efficiency ceases to be the primarily consideration. As a result of the humanitarism which is the necessary corollary of the present individualism a whole series of obstacles arise in the enforcement of execution.The property of the debtor is often put beyond the reach of the creditor either by the procedural delays which make it possible for the debtor to transfer it or by formal exemptions from executions. The person of the debtor is of course beyond seizure. In this respect the law of previous centuries, more judicial inefficiency is usually unaware of the highly artificial meaning of the conception.The law is efficient in civil suits when it enters judgement and issues execution as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter its efficiency ceases to be the primary consideration. As a result of the humanitarianism which is the necessary corollary of the present individualism a whole series of obstacles arise in the enforcement of execution.The property of the debtor is often put beyond the reach of the creditor either by the procedural delays which make it possible for the debtor to transfer it or by formal exemptions from execution. The person of the debtor is of course beyond seizure.In this respect the law of previous centuries, more frequently recognized rights of provisional arrest and imprisonment for debt, was certainly more ‘efficient’. But a return to the older law will hardly recommend itself now. In any event there would still remain the economic poverty of the debtor to defeat the efficiency of the law, and it is safe to venture that the latter would be blamed exclusively for every miscarriage of justice.In the criminal law the situation is somewhat reversed. Once judgement against an offender is given, it is much more certain to be executed. But the concern for the individual is manifest in the procedure to judgement. The provisions are not only considered procedural safeguards but are great constitutional rights.They are indeed constitutional rights which have-been own only after many centuries of bloodshed and in no democracy would their abandonment be seriously considered. The almost insoluble dilemma is that they benefit not only the ordinary citizen who occasionally finds himself in the coils of the law but the professional criminal who by long experience has learned to take advantage of all its defences.

Since it is difficult to secure radical alternation of fundamental social institutions, the reform of judicial administration usually concerns itself with adjustments of the judicial machinery. Reforms of procedure are far more frequent than changes of substantive law. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the results frequently leave so much to be desired.It is true that the distinction between substantive law and procedure to a great extent is artificial. All reforms of procedure affect substantive rights but certainly they cannot improve the situation where the substantive right is of a dubious character. In general the creation of new courts or the appointment of additional judges to existing courts is a very frequent expedient in reforms.Its popularity with politicians arises from the fact that it increases their patronage by providing new offices to fill. Changes in steps in procedure often have the curious result of increasing the congestion of the courts at least for some time. A great deal of litigation is often necessary to settle their effect.The fundamental puzzle of procedural reform is the indispensably of any one particular device. Since legal technique permits of a considerable degree of variance for the accomplishment of similar ends, it can be said that almost any form of procedure reasonably adapted to secure the fundamental purposes of the law will work if there is the will to make it work.On the other hand, it must be remembered that men discharge their civil obligations and abstain from crime not only from fear of legal sanctions but also from moral and practical considerations. The modem tendency certainly has no forms of social control.Finally, it must be realized that even the defects of the administration of justice, at least in civil matters, any have some social value in discouraging litigation, in impelling men to exhaust the possibilities of conciliation. In an acquisitive society, it is perhaps desirable that the paths of litigation be strewn with a few thorns.Arrears in Courts:Popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice has certainly not been less in the twentieth than in previous centuries. In a period of particularly accelerated tempo, it would seem easy to explain the prevailing dissatisfaction in terms of institutional transitions. If, however, the phenomenon is constant, it can hardly be explained entirely as the result of changing conditions.An explanation solely in terms of sociological differentials can be adequate only if more fundamental factors are absent. It is for instance tempting to assign the prevalence of perjury, which so often in modern courts undermined the administration of justice, entirely because of the decline in influence of religious ideas. But perjury has always been a not infrequent crime.It should certainly be no less powerful a restraint to fear for the punishments of this world than to fear the terminates of the next. Authority has maintained itself somehow despite the decay of religious institutions.To take another stock illustration, the vast improvement in means of communication has undoubtedly given the criminal facile means to attempt escape but the advantage is balanced by the ease with which public authorities may pursue him. There is again the pernicious influence of the modern city.To it is attributed the congestion of the courts which is supposed to be the very basis of the modern maladministration of justice. But mere size hardly account for the evils of metropolitan justice. As a matter of fact the city has been the originator of most of the improvements of procedure in the history of legal systems. If there are more litigants in the city, it has the necessary wealth to secure additional judges and good lawyers.There is a general consensus that our judicial system today from the highest to the lowest is suffering from many ailments. Everyone speaking about judicial system starts with an apology and admission of the falling standards. Justice V D Tulzapurkar of the Supreme Court has observed:In fact, the superior judiciary of the country has of late been under constant onslaughts, external as well as internal which are bound to cripple the health, welfare and progress of our body politic, as an ailing

heart cannot ensure vigorous blood supply for the sound health of its people. Former Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati in his Law Day speech in 1985 said:I am pained to observe that the judicial system in the country is almost on the verge of collapse. Our judicial system is crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We often utter this platitudinous phrase to express our indignation at the delay in disposal of cases but this indignation is only at an intellectual and years to get justice.They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait patiently for years and years to gets justice. They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait patiently for years and years gets justice. They have to pass through the labyrinth of one court to another until their patience gets exhausted and they give up hope in utter despair.The only persons who benefit by the delay in our Courts are the dishonest who can with impunity avoid carrying out their legal obligations for years and each affluent person who obtains orders and stays or injunctions against Government and the public authorities and then continues to enjoy the benefit of such stay or injunction for years, often at the cost of public interest.About Supreme Court, the Chief Justice observed: The Supreme Court is today on the brink of collapse with the enormous inflow of cases and heavy arrears. I, for me, do not think that a large increase in the number of judges is desirable. If the number of Judges is unduly increased, the Supreme Court will become like a glorified High Court with fragmented bench structures.The Supreme Court will lose its identity as a Summit Court and there will be losing its identity as a Summit Court and there will be no cohesiveness and uniformity. Equally I am not in favour of curtailing in any manner whatsoever the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.Law’s Delays:The law’s delay is classic and universal; it has served to describe the almost immemorial condition of civil suits. The dockets, or the calendars of civil causes, are always overcrowded and it may take years to get a trial on merits. The expenses of commencing a civil action and the legal costs involved are too heavy, and it becomes hardly worthwhile to base an action on a small claim.The procedure is too elaborate and technicalities impede the litigant at every stage. Even after an initial judgement, a number of appeals may be a further cause of delay. Where, the final judgement is secured, execution is more than likely to be returned unsatisfied.Under such circumstances the honest litigant is impeded in the assertion of his legal rights, while paradoxically enough the dishonest litigant is encouraged to assert unfounded or exaggerated claims. The very expenses of engaging upon a protracted litigation should cause parties to settle for smaller sums or go without redress and justice.Delay and technicality are operative not in civil actions alone. The condition is not better in the administration of criminal justice. In the pre- democratic era the arbitrary character of criminal justice led to accusations of excessive harshness, while and present the outcry is against an excessive tenderness towards malefactors. Many criminals are never even chance to escape by taking advantage of the loopholes of the law.The inherent drama of a criminal trial in the very nature of things always favours the defence. Except in matrimonial actions and libel cases a civil trial is usually free of such influence. On the other hand, corruption, favouritism and perjury are especially operative in criminal trials. Every period has its own cause celebrate.It is a hearsay that wealthy and powerful malefactors escape while the poor and friendless go to jail. Innocent men are sometimes framed by the police; and it is small comfort that the same technique is employed to get professional criminals behind the bars upon fabricated charges. Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court had observed:Another thing which is shaking the confidence of the people in the judicial system is the high incidence of acquittals and the increasing failure of the system to bring major culprits to book. Judges, of courses,

have to give their verdict on the material on record and no one can and should expect the courts to hold a person guilty unless there is credible evidence to substantiate the charge against him.One major reason for the high percentage of acquittals is the decline in the high percentage of acquittals is the decline in the quality of police investigation and its consequent inability to procure and produce credible evidence as may establish the guilt of the accused.Such decline in its turn has been due to interference by the politicians in the investigation of cases. It is well-known that the greater a person is a goonda or an anti-social being the greater in his value and utility at the time of elections.When politicians seek and secure the assistance of anti-social beings at the time of the elections, the latter extend their assistance in the expectation that when those antisocial elements are in trouble at the hands of the law enforcement agencies, the politicians to the anti-social beings when in difficulty is the quid pro quo for the help given by the anti-social beings at the time of elections.All this naturally makes the task of the police Investigation of crimes extremely difficult. This apart, we find that a good bit of the time of the police force is taken in the security and other arrangements for the VIPs. Demonstrations, bandhs, strikes, hartals and agitations have increasingly become a part of cur public life and call for considerable attention of the police force, investigation of crimes occupies comparatively lower priority in the functioning of the police.The result as such is deterioration in the quality of investigation and the increasing inability of the police force to adduce credible evidence at the trial. Be that as it may, whatever may be the reason for the high incidence of acquittals the inevitable effect of that would necessarily be the loss of confidence of the people in the courts to bring the major culprits to book?We have to bear in mind that if the people lose their faith in the judicial system and carry the impression that the judiciary is not able to punish the culprits, the victims and the kinsmen of the victims would resort to extra-legal methods to settle scores with the culprits whose identity is normally known to them. It is plain that such a state of affairs would lead to chaotic and anarchical conditions.Technicalities of Law and its Procedure:A universal rather than a particularistic mode of approach explains a great many of the defects of judicial administration. Litigiousness is a strong characteristic of human nature. All over the world a forensic display attracts the admiration of the multitudes.Curiously, legal technicalities are despised; at the same time, their ingenuity is applauded. Disappointed litigants are riot always silent. In their defeat they appeal from ‘law’ to Justice Lawyers as a class has too much to gain from maintaining the intricacies of their art and to simplify it to great extent would make their service unnecessary.For many reasons legal institutions lag behind changes of public opinion much mere than other institutions. The procedure in the Civil and Criminal Courts has become too technical, cumbersome, expensive and slow. There are too many appeals. It was the best when introduced in the social and political ethos of that time, but it now has become a rain soaked blanket on the back of a common litigant. The judges, lawyers and the defendants have litigant. The judges, lawyers and the defendants have now vested interest in this procedure.Chief Justice Shri P.N Bhagwati in his Law Day speech delivered in 1986 says:There are still unfortunately in our country a few lawyers and jurists who ostrich-like want to bury their heads in sand and refuse to recognize the new change which is taking place in the judicial process as a result of public interest litigation.Trained in the old British tradition of adversary justice and born and brought up in an era where the doctrine of lassies afire prevailed and with their minds fossilized and overtaken by senility, they find it difficult to reconcile themselves to the new wind of change which is roaring down in ancient corridors.They are intellectually still living in the first half of the 20th century or perhaps even the 19th century and cannot grow out of that mould. They are so much accustomed to treading the beaten path that they

cannot tolerate any departure or change, To th6m the justicing process is merely an intellectual exercise where judges and lawyers can display their learning and scholarship, the have-nots and the handicapped, the lowly and the lost have no place in their scheme of things.They want the judiciary to continue dispensing justice processed in the ramshackle and anachronistic Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence because for them those who dispense jurisprudence are demi-gods. But these so called champions of justice do not realize that there are large masses of people in the country who are entitled to justice and if they do not get it soon.They will one day storm the highway and destroy those who claim it to be their exclusive right to walk along it. Fortunately, as a result of public interest litigation, the weaker sections of the people, the disadvantaged segments of the community are now for the first time looking up to the courts as their protector against injustice.So far the courts had been inaccessible to them. But now their problems can be brought before the courts and justice ensured to them through the strategy of public Interest Litigation.A near revolution is taking place in the judicial process, notwithstanding the unreasoned criticism of a few who live in ivory towers and palatial buildings, unmindful of the misery, suffering and exploitation of the underprivileged segments of society who constitute over 50 percent of the population of this country.Conditions of Subordinate Judiciary:The conditions of Subordinate Judiciary, which forms the backbone of the judicial structure, are pitiable; Chief justice Shri P. N. Bhagwati had this to say about it:There are large numbers of cases pending in the subordinate courts of District Judges, Civil Judges and Munsiffs. It is not possible to cope with this large inflow of cases in the subordinate courts unless and until we bring about structural changes, but even within the existing system, we can do very much if we improve the salary and conditions of service of our subordinate judges and provide them better working condition.We are unable to attract good talent in the subordinate judiciary because of the rather poor remuneration and unsatisfactory conditions of service of subordinate judges. We do not have enough number of judges in the subordinate judiciary in many of the states nor do we have enough number of courts.The subordinate judges in quite a few states have no housing facilities and they have to depend on lawyers and, sometimes, even on litigants to obtain housing accommodation and that too at exorbitant rent which they can hardly afford. There are not even proper court buildings at many places.Moreover we do not give to our subordinate judge’s pre appointment training or continuing in service training. We proceed on the assumption that as soon as they are appointed as subordinate Judges, some divine wisdom descents upon they and they acquire skill and capacity to deliver justice. The reason for all this is that in many of the states, administration of justice has a low priority.When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicable system at the lower levels, there are redundancies to make such finances available. We do not seem to realize that it is subordinate courts which form the basis of the pyramid of justice and unless the base is strengthened, the pyramid is bound to crumble.It is often forgotten that the contact of the common man with the justice system occurs only at the level of the subordinate courts; he has rarely occasion to go to the High Court and therefore, if we want to inspire confidence in the common may that he can get justice, it is imperative to strengthen the subordinate judiciaries.There is also lack of appreciation on the part of many, that if there is a strong subordinate judiciary, the number of appeals to the High Courts will go down and the burden of the High Courts will be considerable reduced.Impartiality of Judges and their integrity:

There has always been insistence upon the superior integrity of judicial administration. There is also need for the sublimity of justice. The administration of justice is considered not only as a function of the state but as something of a mystery. This is apparent from many familiar practice and sentiments.At least High Courts of justice are everywhere required to be architecturally magnificent. A trial, particularly a criminal trial, is as much a rite as a religious ceremony. The proceedings are arranged to impress both the participants and the spectators with solemnity of the occasion, with the majesty of the administration of justice. Not only the vulgar but the enlightened still respond to the ritual with some feeling to awe.The reasons for these peculiar attitudes towards judicial administration hark back to an early period in the history of the state, which established the primary importance of rendering justice between man and man. There is a persisting memory of the anarchy of the period of self-help. The early sacral affiliations of the administration of justice are also not forgotten.When the king as sorted his power over warring and intractable, justice was established as the very foundations of kingdoms. The common man now had some measure of relief against the aggressions of the mighty. In his gratitude he invested justice with special attributes of sanctity.For many centuries the state remained almost solely the policing state, and the administration of justice was the only public function it undertook in the interest of the common man. Legal justice was synonymous with social justice, and it was natural enough that it should be appreciated very highly.Today the state undertakes many administrative services, and the contact of the average citizen with the state is far more frequent through its administrative than its judicial agencies. The average man today may not pass through life without coming into contact with the judicial agencies.The average man today may not pass through life without coming into contact with the judicial machinery of the state. But it is still considered far less calamitous to have to pay a bribe for an occupational license than to be denied justice in the courts or to get it by paying for it.Nothing more can undermine the certainty of justice than lack of impartiality. Thus the integrity of the administration of justice has been elevated as an idea!. More over the insistence has been upon a superior degree of integrity as compared with other breaches of administration. Judicial administration has been surrounded with special safeguards.The modern state has striven to achieve a legal justice that should be far superior to its economic justice. In large measure it has succeeded. A judicial scandal is considered especially deplorable. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the courts is a cause for great anxiety and alarm.A legislator or an administrator may be found guilty of corruption without apparently endangering the foundations of the state but a judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion. To speak of “the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judges and administration of justice has become almost a fetus.”The courts/judges have now to realize that its sacrosanct nature, its high pedestal, its power of contempt will not save it if they are not fair, impartial and honest. The modern tendency is that the right to criticize judges be one of the safeguards to ensure very high standards of performance. Our Supreme Court observed in one of the cases:Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgements, the force, fairness and objectivity of their approach and by the restraint, dignity and decorum with which they observe their judicial conduct.India Today summed up the situation thus:Judges today are a community under siege. They are being divested of the single virtue that has been their armour and sword credibility. It is not the tragedy of just a few hundred individuals that their ability and intentions are being brought into question.When these individual happen to be the guardians of our liberty and property, the interpreters and watchdogs of our Constitution, it becomes a national catastrophe. It affects and stultifies each one of us.

Why Indian Judiciary system is so slow and lethargic?Social issuesby Editor56FLARES Twitter 9Google+ 1Facebook 46LinkedIn 0inShareEmail--Email to a friendIndian judiciary system, which encompasses laws and rules governing the social and fundamental scenario of the country, is largely influenced by the English common legislature owing to the prolonged influence of British colonial culture. Although the judiciary system is based on the core values, morale and cultural traditions of Indian society; it has a number of loopholes which often triggers various crime and illegal endeavors.The Indian judicial system is supposed to protect the common men from lawbreakers and offenders. But in reality it serves the

Why Indian Judiciary system is so slow and lethargic – Chakreview.compolitical authorities and provides protection to gruesome criminals who are subtly backed by the politicians. The role of Indian judiciary in securing law and order across the country should be impartial and free from all sorts of external or unauthorized influences.Most negative aspect of Indian judiciary system is its lethargic and slogging approach. There are countless instances wherein cases run for decades and the defendants pass away without being awarded with the proper judgment. Indeed this is shameful for any civilized country that boasts about its advancing prosperity. According to the records till January 2005, more than 30,000 cases pending at the Supreme Court, 33.79 lakh in high courts and more than 2.35 crore in lower courts. With respect to the population on India, the ration of judges to people is 10.5: 10, 00000 which is no doubt the poorest in the world.Often people wait 5 to 20 years to get their cases settled through normal legal course. Another eminent instance of Indian judicial failure is the Bhopal Gas Disaster Judgment. After more than 20 years past the fatal incident, finally Indian judiciary was able to find a decision. But the cornerstone of this case which is the ‘principle of absolute liability’ has been diluted in the decision. It shows nothing but the indifferent approach of the judiciary towards the plight of the victims and any other accidents that may take place in the future.

The Jessica Lal murder case is considered another of major delay of the Judiciary system. The young model was shot dead at a Delhi bar by Manu Sharma whose father was a politically influential person. Though the police chalked the case against him, he went underground for several days and later on

when the preceding started, most of the eye witnesses denied to identify him as the murdered. This is a classic instance of ‘Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied’. In some other cases popular celebrities and political leaders have twisted laws and facts to escape penalty, eg case of Sanjay Dutt’s involvement in Bombay blast or Salman khan’s road rage case. These people are free mainly due to lengthy timings of case hearings and loose laws.Apart from the major cases, there are countless cases of rape, murder and other crimes which remain unresolved for years and the victims suffer pain of dissuasion. The Indian legal system requires a major boost and a complete reformation in order to meet the expectations of the citizens on India. First of all, inflecting the legal judgments, which is considered a crime according to laws, must be punished with immediate effect. In case the existing count of courts is less compared to the population, new court setups should be opened.There should be an even arrangement for the pending cases and new cases. The court remains closed for days just like school holidays which are nothing but an unnecessary luxury. With so much work pending, Government should trim down the number of holidays and day offs. Legal system should not be a purchasable commodity any more. Politicians should be strictly restricted from directly or indirectly interfering in judgments. Moreover the corrupt political leaders must be treated with utmost stringency.Finally it is the responsibility of every Indian to look after its legal system. If all of us do out bit to stay within the legal limits, indeed it will make the task easier for Indian judiciary.